This Presidential Address considers what needs to be done to enable the United Kingdom actuarial profession to flourish in a more competitive environment. It addresses the need for continued modernisation of the actuarial skill-set, and the need to pay greater attention to the way we communicate our findings. The Address briefly reviews some of the recent changes to the regulation of life assurance in the U.K. before considering the role and structure of the professional body in the post-Morris era. It ends with some thoughts on developments in education and CPD.

This Presidential Address is delivered towards the end of the 150th anniversary year of the Faculty of Actuaries, and is timed to coincide with the International Actuarial Association and Groupe Consultatif holding meetings in Edinburgh. It deals with the growing globalisation of the Profession, reviews the key developments arising out of the Morris Review and the implications of current changes. It then moves on to examine communication and the role the Profession can play with the media. A comparison between actuarial practice in life and pensions follows, with suggestions for a closer alignment between pension expectation and pension reality. Comment is made about the prospects for healthy life expectancy. Finally, the relationship between the Faculty and the Institute of Actuaries is debated, and a consultation with Faculty members is launched.

Under the new regulatory regime, it is a requirement that the trustees and the sponsors of pension schemes negotiate scheme funding according to a defined process. For some schemes these negotiations have already started; for many they are due to start shortly. What is clear is that the outcome of the first funding negotiation is critical, as it will set the benchmark for the future.

This Sessional Meeting covers pension scheme funding negotiation, with an emphasis on:

— the ways in which actuaries, trustees and sponsors can, or should, take account of the credit quality of the sponsor;

— the lessons on negotiation drawn from other areas of finance; and

— the role of the regulator.

The meeting takes the form of presentations by three speakers, taking stock of the current situation, and the discussion follows.

Capital and cost of capital form a bridge between the insurance firm and the financial markets. The term capital is used in various ways. In current parlance, economic capital is frequently used to mean capital calculated using a risk-based measure which is independent of the regulatory requirements. In this paper we discuss the concept of target capital, where the firm takes account of three different approaches to risk appetite: regulatory capital plus a buffer; rating agency views; and the views of shareholders, where they make commitments to customers and wish to protect franchise value. We describe how, when blending these views, the firm needs to understand the trade-offs between too high and too low amounts of capital, with reference to the double taxation burden, insurance gearing (leverage of premiums to capital ratio), and the impact of the firm's credit rating on maximising franchise value. We then discuss the main drivers of the cost of capital, which we define as the required total return on the market value of the firm, as determined by reference to the opportunity cost of alternative investments of equivalent risk. We explain that, because the stock market value of the firm is not the same as the capital held inside the firm, the cost of capital derived from external studies cannot be directly applied to internal measures of target return such as return on equity (ROE); it is necessary to translate between the two measures. We separate the risk of the firm between the investment risk and the insurance risk. We describe the frictional costs of investing in an insurance firm, and explain the role of parameter and model risk arising from the uncertainty of the future claim costs of the firm. We describe the findings of two studies of the actual historical stock market returns of United States P&C companies. One of them suggests that applying the Fama-French model produces higher and more accurate cost of capital estimates than the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) method. This is explained by linking the price to book ratio to the costs of financial distress, which are particularly important for general insurance firms, given the influence of insurance strength ratings from the rating agencies. Finally, we attempt to estimate the risk load required in premiums to compensate investors for the elements of cost of capital which we have described, in a way that combines the financial economic approaches to insurance target returns with the traditional actuarial approaches to assessing the risks in the insurance business.